Thanks for your opinion Rogerborg. I'm not going to follow this any more as I suspect I've been baited. Instead of answering my statements you merely use inflammatory statements to keep the discussion going.
We did pick one. We stayed in the international politics game by acceding to the wishes of other nations by backing off of Iraq and imposing United Nations sanctions.
I don't believe you. You tell us that our foreign policy is wrong and corrupt and we should get out of international politics and then have the balls to tell me that we should have rolled in there and deposed him despite the outcry of the international community, the UN, and the Arab Nations in particular?
We stopped because of international pressure. The UN proposed the economic sanctions as an alternative to military action.
So yeah. The Fuck. We played by the rules and now we're the bad guys. Maybe you're not aware that public opinion in the US at the time of Desert Storm was to push Saddam's skanky ass into the ocean.
Stop blaming the US for capitulation to the requests of it's supposed "allies."
We seem to have found the major point of deviation. Past this point I see no further chance of having a useful discussion.
Yes, Korea, Nam, and the Gulf conflicts were not on the scale of World War II. This is by no means belittling the sacrifices made during any of those conflicts, but in SCOPE they are far different from WWII.
US Citizens can take a long look at what the US has been doing, but that doesn't mean that we'd find a better way to do any of it, and in case you haven't noticed, no one is particularly interested in apologies at this point.
This sounds like blind faith nationalism, but that's not the situation. The only aim is to try to make you understand that I, personally, and we, as a nation, cannot let this go unremarked. We have reacted with exquisite control in every previous attack of this sort (if not this magnitude) and done very little other than find the individuals responsible.
That's over now. Now we'll have a campaign to rid the world of the organizations that support these people. It's not going to be pretty, but neither is shoveling body parts into a body bag for later reassembly.
One last thing. The US has NOT been targetting civilian populations since 1943. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sad events, but warning was given which the Japanese Government refused to believe at the time. Since then there has been no other such a massive loss of life in a single attack.
The Sanctions in Iraq are a simple matter, and I can't believe that you're naive enough to bring them up. That's a lot like a dog blaming you because he yanked too hard on his leash. People have died during the sanctions because Saddam Hussein refused to capitulate. The UN thought that sanctions were more humane. Are you now saying that it would have been more merciful to roll into Bagdad (sp?) with tanks? Or perhaps we should have just let the Iraqi army roll across Kuwait, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
Never mind. Different discussion for a different time.
I'm talking about the fact that before 1937 Roosevelt and the American Congress were isolationist.
For FDR that changed in 1937 with the Panay incident.
In fact, if you'd care to look a little farther back, The US entry to WW1 was also preceded by a period of isolationism.
50 years is a long time to not have major conflict (no, I'm not counting the cold war) between the great powers of the world. The last two times we were isolationists the gap was considerably shorter.
I really do think you're wrong. We tried a policy of non-involvement and isolationism once before, and the result was World War II.
The weapons are more destructive now, and the stakes are higher. We, as a world, can no longer afford the luxury of ignoring everything outside our borders.
Once again, you make numerous statement for which you have no basis for fact.
I find it interesting that your opinion, which you have openly stated is derived directly from the works of another, is qualified as free thinking. Meanwhile, my opinion which is derived from an unspecified (in my comments) culling of news articles and sources is considered not thinking.
Again, I struggle to see how you come to that conclusion. Perhaps it's only because you disagree with me that you need to try to debase my intelligence.
Your response to the second paragraph (even though you say it's not a response) just shows that you didn't understand the analogy, or were offended by my reference to the Bible. I suspected that would be a mistake, and I find it funny that you seized on it. Personally, I'm not remotely Christian, but I thought you'd get the point.
Let me rephrase it then. There are a lot of incredibly convincing works that prove that space travel is impossible, men never landed on the moon, and that the Earth is flat. The Greeks had massive amounts of proof that everything can be broken down into just 4 basic elements.
Need I go on?
However, I apologize for the assumption I made. I'll even admit that I agree with you on one point:
We brought this on ourselves.
We have allowed countless attacks with minimal retribution. We've lived in a soap bubble where we were protected from the horrors that Britain and Israel and countless other nations must deal with on a daily basis.
Do you honestly believe that if we had spent the last 50 years curled up in our corner of the world that we'd be loved universally? That speaks more of your naivete than it does of my ability to distinguish garbage from gold.
Lastly, I'll agree with you again. "Deserved" doesn't enter the equation at all. Actions have consequences. Keep that in mind.
I still want to know why it makes you more informed than I.
The US went to Iraq because we wanted to beat up on some poor, defenseless, harmless, peaceful non-english speaking middle eastern dustbowl.
For the uninitiated, that was sarcasm.
I'm not going to give you a history lesson youngster. You could also ask why we were in Germany or Japan, couldn't you. You obviously have a computer, so try learning something with it instead of spending all of your time posting uninformed responses anonymously.
So parroting a published author makes you an authority? Garbage gets published every day, and just because you happen to agree with the author's views doesn't mean that it's a truth.
As far as being incredibly well-referenced: I know a lot of televangelists who reference the Bible constantly. It doesn't make them Holy.
But let's deal with the situation at hand. Are you implying that we got what we deserved, and that we're going to get more of it and should just take it because we're such bad people?
I don't know about you, but that just doesn't work for me.
I love your generalizations and inaccuracies. This is the biggest piece of reactionary crap I've seen posted yet.
In every conflict there is a side. The US has intervened in many conflicts, often at the request of one of those sides. Inevitably, the other side views us as the enemy.
Do you think that the Kuwaiti are complaining because we parked a carrier group off the coast of Iraq? Regardless of oil, do you think it was right for the citizenry there to be subjected to brutal torture and treatment?
I'm not going to attempt a point by point disagreement here, as you've been amazingly vague. But realize that in EVERY conflict that we've been involved, there were those who were native to the area who WANTED us there.
Odd that you should bring up Nuremburg, tho. I seem to remember a rather bloody war that ended in a flash of light before we could bring these men to justice.
I suppose that means that YOU believe there will be a long, bloody conflict ahead.
I want to thank you for having the guts to not post anonymously.
I still disagree. Sanctions are easily lifted, and bombing stops. And what was the price for the cessation of those things?
At any point did we DELIBERATELY kill thousands? What was the strategic value of the WTC?
Other than as an object of fear.
Regardless, this is one of those situations that has nothing to do with right or wrong. This is a situation regarding the survival of our way of life.
As a child, I remember the comics that told me that fighting in our foes' manner reduced us to his level.
So be it. The British know how to handle terrorism. The Israeli's know how to handle terrorism. The Russian's know how to handle Terrorism. It's time we went to school.
There is a greater threat. Those who insist on decrying our own country, our own people, our own culture (however flawed) in order to ignore the plain threat from outside.
Is this self loathing or cowardice?
Believe it or not, People in the United States are more civilized, more generous, and more gentle than many parts of the world. It may not look like it from inside the fishbowl, but riots aren't a daily occurrence here, are they.
We trust, probably more than we should. It was the root of this disaster, and while it would be easy to simply never trust again, it's our duty to regain some of that innocence, some of that freedom that we had, for our children.
I'll be the first to agree that politics in this country is a dirty business. I'll even agree that our lifestyle and structure may eventually prove to be each of our undoing.
But I will not, EVER, agree that we are a greater threat, a bigger danger than madmen who can kill thousands with no glimmer of conscience.
Don't lecture me on what may have been done before, or what may be done in the future. I know that that building was filled with people who had no more reason to die than I do. It makes me afraid, and anger is the complement of fear.
Throughout the day, I've been stopping to imagine the last moments of one of those lives. I know without being told that every single one of them started their day like hundreds before. Can you imagine how differently an ordinary day could end? Can you imagine the sudden panic as the floor in the stairwell begins to collapse, and you realize on the 40th floor that you will never, ever see you mother again? How about the thought that no one will know to feed your dog? What if you had never worked up the nerve to tell someone that they were loved?
Sure, I know it sounds sappy to a bunch of jaded imperialists who have no brains other than to follow their corrupt leaders.
So I'm a slave to my fast food culture. I still cry.
WHOA there son! The singularity isn't about being enslaved, it's about a world that has so much information input that a human mind can't grasp it. A world that changes so rapidly that we never see more than a slice of it.
In that, Vinge is correct: We're already seeing it. How many hours do doctors have to spend keeping up with new developments in their field? Most of them are woefully unaware of the latest developments...
This goes for many other fields.
The singularity is just the point where we either step back and let the machines handle it, step up and modify ourselves to deal with it, or step out and pretend it never happenned.
I promised I wouldn't do this. I promised I wouldn't do this.
Nice bit of commentary, chum. If that's all you got out of the movie, I'm truly sorry. Maybe if you paid attention to the words that came between FUCK you'd have gotten more out of it, but if you chose to focus on one four letter word with the semantic value of noise and assume that it was the sum, total, and point of the movie, I can see where you got your impression.
At least I know how to keep you from understanding fucking posts. Just put fuck in a few fucking times and it all comes out the same.
I have to disagree. I think the bit that threw you is that he had 2 points on this one, both of which were very personal to Kevin.
1. It's damned easy to criticize when you don't have to face the consequences, or even the target, of your criticism. This is both the internet's greatest strength and weakness, as it allows us all to voice our opinions, but anonymity also has the drawback of taking away our credibility.
2. Hollywood is a weird, weird place, where your life and career can hinge on which studio exec shows up for work on any particular day.
There was a lot of other minor satire. Let's face it, though. Dogma was pretty heavy, if you REALLY watched it. I think Kevin probably decided not to beat us over the head with this movie, and give us all a chance to laugh and relax.
But if you look real close, there's that hidden meaning...
Ok, I like your point, but I have to bring up a few things.
It's been illegal to rip mp3's since the DMCA passed, because you bought the music on a CD, so under the DMCA you can only use that CD. Transferring to another form of media is expressly illegal. Including audiotape.
Second, the state of California just did that very thing to gun manufacturers. They attempted to sue the manufacturer because it was possible to use the weapons to harm people.
If this was sarcasm, I apologize that I didn't get it.
>: the RIAA must be preparing to argue that music, like software, is licenced, not bought outright
Precisely what they want to do with the DMCA!
I keep thinking of "Civil Disobedience"...
Re:There should be a total recall!
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 1
When a car manufacturer does a recall, they fix the vehicle in the cheapest manner possible that will correct the problem. But the consumer STILL has to bring the vehicle in. Where's the difference with applying a free patch?
I think you're letting your anti-microsoft zealousness cloud your thinking.
Blaming the producer is irresponsible. Mistakes get made and you fix them as fast as possible. If the fix is available, and it's unused, then who exactly is at fault?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your opinion Rogerborg. I'm not going to follow this any more as I suspect I've been baited. Instead of answering my statements you merely use inflammatory statements to keep the discussion going.
We did pick one. We stayed in the international politics game by acceding to the wishes of other nations by backing off of Iraq and imposing United Nations sanctions.
I'm sorry you're sick. Get well soon.
I don't believe you. You tell us that our foreign policy is wrong and corrupt and we should get out of international politics and then have the balls to tell me that we should have rolled in there and deposed him despite the outcry of the international community, the UN, and the Arab Nations in particular?
We stopped because of international pressure. The UN proposed the economic sanctions as an alternative to military action.
So yeah. The Fuck. We played by the rules and now we're the bad guys. Maybe you're not aware that public opinion in the US at the time of Desert Storm was to push Saddam's skanky ass into the ocean.
Stop blaming the US for capitulation to the requests of it's supposed "allies."
We seem to have found the major point of deviation. Past this point I see no further chance of having a useful discussion.
Yes, Korea, Nam, and the Gulf conflicts were not on the scale of World War II. This is by no means belittling the sacrifices made during any of those conflicts, but in SCOPE they are far different from WWII.
US Citizens can take a long look at what the US has been doing, but that doesn't mean that we'd find a better way to do any of it, and in case you haven't noticed, no one is particularly interested in apologies at this point.
This sounds like blind faith nationalism, but that's not the situation. The only aim is to try to make you understand that I, personally, and we, as a nation, cannot let this go unremarked. We have reacted with exquisite control in every previous attack of this sort (if not this magnitude) and done very little other than find the individuals responsible.
That's over now. Now we'll have a campaign to rid the world of the organizations that support these people. It's not going to be pretty, but neither is shoveling body parts into a body bag for later reassembly.
One last thing. The US has NOT been targetting civilian populations since 1943. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sad events, but warning was given which the Japanese Government refused to believe at the time. Since then there has been no other such a massive loss of life in a single attack.
The Sanctions in Iraq are a simple matter, and I can't believe that you're naive enough to bring them up. That's a lot like a dog blaming you because he yanked too hard on his leash. People have died during the sanctions because Saddam Hussein refused to capitulate. The UN thought that sanctions were more humane. Are you now saying that it would have been more merciful to roll into Bagdad (sp?) with tanks? Or perhaps we should have just let the Iraqi army roll across Kuwait, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
Never mind. Different discussion for a different time.
I'm talking about the fact that before 1937 Roosevelt and the American Congress were isolationist.
For FDR that changed in 1937 with the Panay incident.
In fact, if you'd care to look a little farther back, The US entry to WW1 was also preceded by a period of isolationism.
50 years is a long time to not have major conflict (no, I'm not counting the cold war) between the great powers of the world. The last two times we were isolationists the gap was considerably shorter.
I really do think you're wrong. We tried a policy of non-involvement and isolationism once before, and the result was World War II.
The weapons are more destructive now, and the stakes are higher. We, as a world, can no longer afford the luxury of ignoring everything outside our borders.
Once again, you make numerous statement for which you have no basis for fact.
I find it interesting that your opinion, which you have openly stated is derived directly from the works of another, is qualified as free thinking. Meanwhile, my opinion which is derived from an unspecified (in my comments) culling of news articles and sources is considered not thinking.
Again, I struggle to see how you come to that conclusion. Perhaps it's only because you disagree with me that you need to try to debase my intelligence.
Your response to the second paragraph (even though you say it's not a response) just shows that you didn't understand the analogy, or were offended by my reference to the Bible. I suspected that would be a mistake, and I find it funny that you seized on it. Personally, I'm not remotely Christian, but I thought you'd get the point.
Let me rephrase it then. There are a lot of incredibly convincing works that prove that space travel is impossible, men never landed on the moon, and that the Earth is flat. The Greeks had massive amounts of proof that everything can be broken down into just 4 basic elements.
Need I go on?
However, I apologize for the assumption I made. I'll even admit that I agree with you on one point:
We brought this on ourselves.
We have allowed countless attacks with minimal retribution. We've lived in a soap bubble where we were protected from the horrors that Britain and Israel and countless other nations must deal with on a daily basis.
Do you honestly believe that if we had spent the last 50 years curled up in our corner of the world that we'd be loved universally? That speaks more of your naivete than it does of my ability to distinguish garbage from gold.
Lastly, I'll agree with you again. "Deserved" doesn't enter the equation at all. Actions have consequences. Keep that in mind.
I still want to know why it makes you more informed than I.
Oh for crying out loud.
The US went to Iraq because we wanted to beat up on some poor, defenseless, harmless, peaceful non-english speaking middle eastern dustbowl.
For the uninitiated, that was sarcasm.
I'm not going to give you a history lesson youngster. You could also ask why we were in Germany or Japan, couldn't you. You obviously have a computer, so try learning something with it instead of spending all of your time posting uninformed responses anonymously.
So parroting a published author makes you an authority? Garbage gets published every day, and just because you happen to agree with the author's views doesn't mean that it's a truth.
As far as being incredibly well-referenced: I know a lot of televangelists who reference the Bible constantly. It doesn't make them Holy.
But let's deal with the situation at hand. Are you implying that we got what we deserved, and that we're going to get more of it and should just take it because we're such bad people?
I don't know about you, but that just doesn't work for me.
I love your generalizations and inaccuracies. This is the biggest piece of reactionary crap I've seen posted yet.
In every conflict there is a side. The US has intervened in many conflicts, often at the request of one of those sides. Inevitably, the other side views us as the enemy.
Do you think that the Kuwaiti are complaining because we parked a carrier group off the coast of Iraq? Regardless of oil, do you think it was right for the citizenry there to be subjected to brutal torture and treatment?
I'm not going to attempt a point by point disagreement here, as you've been amazingly vague. But realize that in EVERY conflict that we've been involved, there were those who were native to the area who WANTED us there.
It's sad to think that the US has been the catalyst for peace between Israel and Palestine, and the Palestinians don't see it that way.
Unfortunately, I think that shortly they will realize how much we've been calming the Israelis.
Sad that you think that was the suggestion.
Odd that you should bring up Nuremburg, tho. I seem to remember a rather bloody war that ended in a flash of light before we could bring these men to justice.
I suppose that means that YOU believe there will be a long, bloody conflict ahead.
I'm pretty sure there was a flight crew over Pennsylvania that felt strongly enough not to allow themselves to be used as a weapon.
Don't cheapen the sacrifice. There are a lot of heroes out there.
I want to thank you for having the guts to not post anonymously.
I still disagree. Sanctions are easily lifted, and bombing stops. And what was the price for the cessation of those things?
At any point did we DELIBERATELY kill thousands? What was the strategic value of the WTC?
Other than as an object of fear.
Regardless, this is one of those situations that has nothing to do with right or wrong. This is a situation regarding the survival of our way of life.
As a child, I remember the comics that told me that fighting in our foes' manner reduced us to his level.
So be it. The British know how to handle terrorism. The Israeli's know how to handle terrorism. The Russian's know how to handle Terrorism. It's time we went to school.
You know, normally I'm not a big fan of Katz, but I have to back him this time.
All he really did was tell us how the whole thing made him feel. If you really think about it, that's all he can honestly do.
There is a greater threat. Those who insist on decrying our own country, our own people, our own culture (however flawed) in order to ignore the plain threat from outside.
Is this self loathing or cowardice?
Believe it or not, People in the United States are more civilized, more generous, and more gentle than many parts of the world. It may not look like it from inside the fishbowl, but riots aren't a daily occurrence here, are they.
We trust, probably more than we should. It was the root of this disaster, and while it would be easy to simply never trust again, it's our duty to regain some of that innocence, some of that freedom that we had, for our children.
I'll be the first to agree that politics in this country is a dirty business. I'll even agree that our lifestyle and structure may eventually prove to be each of our undoing.
But I will not, EVER, agree that we are a greater threat, a bigger danger than madmen who can kill thousands with no glimmer of conscience.
Don't lecture me on what may have been done before, or what may be done in the future. I know that that building was filled with people who had no more reason to die than I do. It makes me afraid, and anger is the complement of fear.
Throughout the day, I've been stopping to imagine the last moments of one of those lives. I know without being told that every single one of them started their day like hundreds before. Can you imagine how differently an ordinary day could end? Can you imagine the sudden panic as the floor in the stairwell begins to collapse, and you realize on the 40th floor that you will never, ever see you mother again? How about the thought that no one will know to feed your dog? What if you had never worked up the nerve to tell someone that they were loved?
Sure, I know it sounds sappy to a bunch of jaded imperialists who have no brains other than to follow their corrupt leaders.
So I'm a slave to my fast food culture. I still cry.
WHOA there son! The singularity isn't about being enslaved, it's about a world that has so much information input that a human mind can't grasp it. A world that changes so rapidly that we never see more than a slice of it.
In that, Vinge is correct: We're already seeing it. How many hours do doctors have to spend keeping up with new developments in their field? Most of them are woefully unaware of the latest developments...
This goes for many other fields.
The singularity is just the point where we either step back and let the machines handle it, step up and modify ourselves to deal with it, or step out and pretend it never happenned.
Hat's off to you both! :D
Where the hell IS Magnoliafan?
I promised I wouldn't do this. I promised I wouldn't do this.
Nice bit of commentary, chum. If that's all you got out of the movie, I'm truly sorry. Maybe if you paid attention to the words that came between FUCK you'd have gotten more out of it, but if you chose to focus on one four letter word with the semantic value of noise and assume that it was the sum, total, and point of the movie, I can see where you got your impression.
At least I know how to keep you from understanding fucking posts. Just put fuck in a few fucking times and it all comes out the same.
Let's just say they close the book...:)
Funny thing is that most people don't see the difference between bashing an organization and bashing a set of ideals.
Of course, most organized religions don't see that difference either...
I have to disagree. I think the bit that threw you is that he had 2 points on this one, both of which were very personal to Kevin.
1. It's damned easy to criticize when you don't have to face the consequences, or even the target, of your criticism. This is both the internet's greatest strength and weakness, as it allows us all to voice our opinions, but anonymity also has the drawback of taking away our credibility.
2. Hollywood is a weird, weird place, where your life and career can hinge on which studio exec shows up for work on any particular day.
There was a lot of other minor satire. Let's face it, though. Dogma was pretty heavy, if you REALLY watched it. I think Kevin probably decided not to beat us over the head with this movie, and give us all a chance to laugh and relax.
But if you look real close, there's that hidden meaning...
Ok, I like your point, but I have to bring up a few things.
It's been illegal to rip mp3's since the DMCA passed, because you bought the music on a CD, so under the DMCA you can only use that CD. Transferring to another form of media is expressly illegal. Including audiotape.
Second, the state of California just did that very thing to gun manufacturers. They attempted to sue the manufacturer because it was possible to use the weapons to harm people.
If this was sarcasm, I apologize that I didn't get it.
It has long be a fact of life that artists make most of their money on tour. Period.
Rant all you want about stealing from the artist. The fact is that without distribution they wouldn't receive any money at all.
Let's face facts here. The Djinn is out of the bottle, and all the attempts to put it back are wasted effort. It's like unscrambling an egg.
I think it would be smarter for the record industry to learn how to season those eggs so that they like them.
>: the RIAA must be preparing to argue that music, like software, is licenced, not bought outright
Precisely what they want to do with the DMCA!
I keep thinking of "Civil Disobedience"...
When a car manufacturer does a recall, they fix the vehicle in the cheapest manner possible that will correct the problem. But the consumer STILL has to bring the vehicle in. Where's the difference with applying a free patch?
I think you're letting your anti-microsoft zealousness cloud your thinking.
Blaming the producer is irresponsible. Mistakes get made and you fix them as fast as possible. If the fix is available, and it's unused, then who exactly is at fault?